Re: Is this a bug?

On 26 August 2015 at 20:24, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com
> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:04:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:12:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
> wrote:
> > > > >> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for
> > > > >> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at the ALTER TABLE options, I am going to put this check
> in a
> > > > > !IsBinaryUpgrade block so pg_upgrade can still use its trick.
> > > >
> > > > -1, that's really ugly.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the right solution is to add a form of ALTER TABLE that is
> > > > specifically defined to do only this check. This is an ongoing need,
> > > > so that might not be out of line.
> > >
> > > Ah, seems ALTER TABLE ... DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS also works --- I
> > > will use that.
> >
> > OK, attached patch applied, with pg_upgrade adjustments. I didn't
> > think the original regression tests for this were necessary.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Why this patch was reverted one day after applied [1]? I didn't see any
> discussion around it.
>
> Regards,
>
> [1]
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=6cb74a67e26523eb2408f441bfc589c80f76c465
>

The discussion was here:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140826000757.GE14956@momjian.us

Thom